VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Mister F

What you fail to understand is that if you successfully campaign against rail upgrades in one part of the country you've just made made upgrades less likely in other parts of the country. That money saved won't go towards your favoured rail project, it'll get spent on something other than rail altogether. Or it won't get spent at all. The stronger the rail network in the Corridor, the more likely that other parts of the country will get some love too.

When was the last time service was ADDED to anywhere outside the Corridor? This is either more times per week, or new routes. This does not include restoration of service once repairs to the tracks were done.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

His narcissism requires that HFR fail so that he can be proven right about working professionals at VIA knowing less than him.

Just imagine the delusion required to think that after a $4-6B project failing to generate the promised returns, future governments will happily sign up to fund more multi-billion projects in areas of the country with a fraction of the population and the traffic between them.

Ottawa-Montrreal and Montreal-Quebec City, are both city pairs that are closer to together with higher combined populations than Calgary-Edmonton. Quebec also has higher fuel taxes then Alberta. If those city pairs don't perform as promised the case for Calgary-Edmonton will be shot.

I do want HFR to be successful. But I doubt it'll be the windfall some think it will be.
The line will not be much faster than it currently is. I am talking hour(s), not minutes.
The line likely will not be much more frequent than the planes are.
The line will do nothing to show a city pair that does not have an abandoned line should get service.

In short, how well it does will only benefit Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.

Originally Posted by someone123

I think our planning horizons are too short and we are too focused on the bottom line in Canada rather than long-term value. I don't know how something like the TCH or original Pacific rail connection ever could have been built with the current mindset (I suspect that if you looked at the % of GDP of even some modest projects from the first half of the 20th century they'd be far beyond anything on the table today).

One good goal in Canada would be to develop new cities and areas to build where people want to live. Trains would be great for this, particularly as more work becomes remote but people want to be able to go in to the office a couple times a week. If you live on a 200 km/h rail line, you can live hundreds of km from a workplace that you visit a few times a week.

The Lower Mainland is kind of screwed because it's largely ALR land but there's still some potential. Ontario has lots of old towns that would be pretty nice places to live if they were stops on a quick train route to Toronto.

NS and NB are extremely ripe for this type of development. If you built a 200 km/h line between Halifax and Moncton it would create a quasi-metro area with a bit of critical mass, revitalize a bunch of towns, and open up lots of attractive land to develop (non-agricultural land around lakes with a comparatively mild climate that is actually pretty rare in Canada). It would also be an immediately useful service for a bunch of suburbanites. This could be for Canada a bit like what some of the Sunbelt metros are for the US.

I also liked the post earlier about how HSR between Toronto and Montreal would change how people work and live in Canada. I even think it would have a cultural impact, and that it's highly desirable to encourage travel between Ontario and Quebec in Canada (or Quebec and anywhere else, but Ontario has the most people living the closest).

The fact is, those major civil projects would never have been started. People in Toronto would be whinging that their trip to Montreal is taking too long and that the money is better spent to speed that up.

HSR will never be built in Canada. It has too high a cost for citizens to value it. he problem is, it is needed badly. Had we not cut taxes, and instead invested for the future, we would likely have HSR in most areas.

Instead, we have unreliable service in most of the country, if they even have service.

If we really want to fix this, the government needs to stop expecting Via to be profitable, and instead expect Via to be able to transport as many Canadians as much as possible. Bring back the 1989 routes. That would be one of the first starts. (I already know some of those lines do not exist.) Get all schedules predictable. I should know when the Budd car passes my house. I still have yet to catch it - And I have been trying for a year.

But, lets be fair, 20 years will pass and no new services will exist outside the Corridor.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

When was the last time service was ADDED to anywhere outside the Corridor? This is either more times per week, or new routes. This does not include restoration of service once repairs to the tracks were done.



I do want HFR to be successful. But I doubt it'll be the windfall some think it will be.
The line will not be much faster than it currently is. I am talking hour(s), not minutes.
The line likely will not be much more frequent than the planes are.
The line will do nothing to show a city pair that does not have an abandoned line should get service.

In short, how well it does will only benefit Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.



The fact is, those major civil projects would never have been started. People in Toronto would be whinging that their trip to Montreal is taking too long and that the money is better spent to speed that up.

HSR will never be built in Canada. It has too high a cost for citizens to value it. he problem is, it is needed badly. Had we not cut taxes, and instead invested for the future, we would likely have HSR in most areas.

Instead, we have unreliable service in most of the country, if they even have service.

If we really want to fix this, the government needs to stop expecting Via to be profitable, and instead expect Via to be able to transport as many Canadians as much as possible. Bring back the 1989 routes. That would be one of the first starts. (I already know some of those lines do not exist.) Get all schedules predictable. I should know when the Budd car passes my house. I still have yet to catch it - And I have been trying for a year.

But, lets be fair, 20 years will pass and no new services will exist outside the Corridor.

Tax cutting mania originated with Western Canada populists. Tax cutting is an easy carrot to wave in front of the voter, that actually gives little benefit to anybody. The first thing to go is investment in infrastructure. We know that infrastructure is deteriorating everywhere. Tax cutting means that there is no money for the big projects and it is easy to study and defer, then repeat. Again, small amounts of money spent on studies for no public benefit except to make the tax cutting politicians appear that they doing something.

Look at the Toronto-London HSR project that was brought up in two consecutive Ontario elections with no real action in between and even less since.

There is no sense in drowning VIA in debt by resurrecting poor unreliable service. Without legislation requiring the freight railways to give priority to passenger trains, this is doomed to failure. Service reliability would be much worse than in 1989. It is unlikely that such legislation will be possible especially since the freight railways operate with little or no surplus capacity after decades of cutting trackage to improve profitability.

HFR is the best hope for new VIA service. It can be looked at as a demonstration project of what is possible without breaking the bank. It needs to succeed otherwise VIA will continue to dwindle. We need to worry about maintaining current service. Returning to 1989 is beyond hope.

Tax cutting mania prevents increasing VIA subsidies. Subsidies can only be increased if substantially more passengers (voters) use the service and the best hope of that is in the Ontario-Quebec corridor.

If HFR ever gets off the ground, it will be a big victory for VIA as it will be laying substantial amounts of its own new track for the first time. VIA owning track is the key to service expansion and service reliability in the future. We have already seen disasters of track being built on freight right of ways at taxpayer expense that were quickly absorbed by the freight railways for their own use.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I would argue that they either haven’t been pushing this very hard, or they don’t know how to play politics.

Don't forget VIA Rail is a Crown Corporation and its CEO is appointed (for a fixed 5 year term) by a board of directors, who in turn are appointed by the Minister of Transport. From that, you can infer that all of the board members and the CEO certainly do know how to play politics, otherwise they wouldn't have been appointed in the first place. They also know which side of their bread is buttered, and want to keep it that way, especially when you consider the CEO's term is fixed, so they want to still be in favour after their term is up. Also, long term plans are less beneficial to you if you know for a fact that you won't be in power when they come to fruition (politicians at lest have a hope of being re-elected).

Having said that, I do believe Yves Desjardins-Siciliano did an amazing job, all things considered. He managed to get an order for a new corridor fleet and pushed for HFR. I will say the jury is still out about his replacement, Cynthia Garneau. Maybe she will be great, but only time will tell.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I do want HFR to be successful. But I doubt it'll be the windfall some think it will be.

That's your narcissism talking. Your comments below show quite a bit of ignorance on VIA's current Corridor services, the HFR proposal and alternatives. Let's break down your misunderstandings.

Starting with this idea that HFR isn't all that substantial a change. I'd say a forecast of 10 million riders for just the Corridor, when VIA's entire annual ridership is currently under 5 million, is quite notable.



Pre-Covid, VIA was already filling every train they put on. That 10 million target for trains that are faster, more comfortable and possibly cheaper (because of higher asset utilization) will have no problem meeting that ridership target.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The line will not be much faster than it currently is. I am talking hour(s), not minutes.

Says you. 3.25 hrs between Toronto and Ottawa and 2.2 hrs between Montreal and Quebec City is competitive with flying for a lot of travelers. Compare that to a 5 hr train ride today for the former and 3+ hrs for the latter. If you do the door-to-door trip time math, the time savings with flying will be so marginal, that most won't bother with airfare.

And 1.5 hrs between Ottawa and Montreal makes that segment commutable for ex-urban commuters. Compared to 2 hrs today by train or car. It's also 1 hr from Ottawa to Dorval with HFR, which makes that airport competitive for a lot of travelers originating in Ottawa.

There's only one segment without a substantial reduction in travel time: Toronto-Montreal. It saves 19 mins as per the link above. And even this will finally see travel times better than driving or the bus and most importantly consistent travel times as opposed to today where the trains routinely average 20+ minutes late on top of the 5+ hr travel time.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The line likely will not be much more frequent than the planes are.

Pre-Covid, VIA already had 10 departures each way per day. HFR presumes 15 departures per day. See the link above. That is damn close to Air Canada and Porter's flight schedules. Possibly more than WestJet.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

In short, how well it does will only benefit Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.

You mean the first, second and fifth largest metros in the country with a combined CMA population of 12 million and includes the country's political and financial centre?

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The line will do nothing to show a city pair that does not have an abandoned line should get service.

Like all of the above, this shows your ignorance of what is proposed and the impact it would have. And it's driven entirely by your narcissism.

A line that connects a third of the country's population, is competitive with flying on several segments, that more than doubles VIA's ridership, built for less than what the Eglinton Crosstown costs in Toronto will be a fantastic demonstration of what can be done to boost intercity rail ridership in Canada. And will be absolutely transformative for the region.

That demonstration is what will build the case for investment elsewhere.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Don't forget VIA Rail is a Crown Corporation and its CEO is appointed (for a fixed 5 year term) by a board of directors, who in turn are appointed by the Minister of Transport. From that, you can infer that all of the board members and the CEO certainly do know how to play politics, otherwise they wouldn't have been appointed in the first place. They also know which side of their bread is buttered, and want to keep it that way, especially when you consider the CEO's term is fixed, so they want to still be in favour after their term is up.

If that's how you define "politics", then, yes, the CEO and board at VIA know how to play within the boundaries of the existing rules to make sure they can land good jobs in the Federal bureaucracy when they leave. There's nothing really bold or inspiring there.

But when I say "politics", I'm talking about using a combination of power and deal-making to find a way to get a difficult project that you've championed off the ground. The fact that dealing with government officials is challenging and time-consuming isn't news to anyone - and you don't have to have experience in Ottawa to know this. It still doesn't explain why some organizations are able to get extremely large and controversial projects off the ground, often with actively hostile and quite powerful enemies.

I'm not saying that it's easy, and I'm certainly not saying that I would know how to do it, but there are probably leaders out there who are savvy enough to navigate the political system to get HFR up and running, and convince the Board that it's an important enough project to champion beyond their 5 year mandate.

[Truenorth00]

Ugh. People really don't understand how government works. It's not the board you have to convince. It's the owner of VIA Rail: the Government of Canada.

And it's easy to say, "I'm sure there is somebody out there.". If there was and they had substantially more political clout why would they be a public servant working at VIA?

The government has an open appointment process to the board. Some of the loud mouths here need to put up their resumes.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The government has an open appointment process to the board. Some of the loud mouths here need to put up their resumes.

Sometimes it is good to get the perspective from outside the system. At the end of the day, the interior political dysfunction is an explanation for what is going on but not a justification. And there is always the option of replacing that system with something else.

SSP is a public discussion forum where anybody can share their opinions. There are lots of media outlets that share the opinions of political insiders.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

Sometimes it is good to get the perspective from outside the system.

I agree. And so does the government. Which is why there is an open appointments process for people who have the interest and qualifications and feel inclined to offer that outside perspective.

Originally Posted by someone123

At the end of the day, the interior political dysfunction is an explanation for what is going on but not a justification.

Political dysfunction is the fault of politicians, not public servants. Put the blame where it should lie.

Originally Posted by someone123

And there is always the option of replacing that system with something else.

Absolutely. Some of the folks here should run for office and make those options available....

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That's your narcissism talking. Your comments below show quite a bit of ignorance on VIA's current Corridor services, the HFR proposal and alternatives. Let's break down your misunderstandings.

Starting with this idea that HFR isn't all that substantial a change. I'd say a forecast of 10 million riders for just the Corridor, when VIA's entire annual ridership is currently under 5 million, is quite notable.



Pre-Covid, VIA was already filling every train they put on. That 10 million target for trains that are faster, more comfortable and possibly cheaper (because of higher asset utilization) will have no problem meeting that ridership target.



Says you. 3.25 hrs between Toronto and Ottawa and 2.2 hrs between Montreal and Quebec City is competitive with flying for a lot of travelers. Compare that to a 5 hr train ride today for the former and 3+ hrs for the latter. If you do the door-to-door trip time math, the time savings with flying will be so marginal, that most won't bother with airfare.

And 1.5 hrs between Ottawa and Montreal makes that segment commutable for ex-urban commuters. Compared to 2 hrs today by train or car. It's also 1 hr from Ottawa to Dorval with HFR, which makes that airport competitive for a lot of travelers originating in Ottawa.

There's only one segment without a substantial reduction in travel time: Toronto-Montreal. It saves 19 mins as per the link above. And even this will finally see travel times better than driving or the bus and most importantly consistent travel times as opposed to today where the trains routinely average 20+ minutes late on top of the 5+ hr travel time.



Pre-Covid, VIA already had 10 departures each way per day. HFR presumes 15 departures per day. See the link above. That is damn close to Air Canada and Porter's flight schedules. Possibly more than WestJet.



You mean the first, second and fifth largest metros in the country with a combined CMA population of 12 million and includes the country's political and financial centre?




Like all of the above, this shows your ignorance of what is proposed and the impact it would have. And it's driven entirely by your narcissism.

A line that connects a third of the country's population, is competitive with flying on several segments, that more than doubles VIA's ridership, built for less than what the Eglinton Crosstown costs in Toronto will be a fantastic demonstration of what can be done to boost intercity rail ridership in Canada. And will be absolutely transformative for the region.

That demonstration is what will build the case for investment elsewhere.

Thank you for educating me. I did not know the route was going to have close to the same pre-covid trains as planes. I also did not know how full the trains were.

A question to ask is why add 5 more services a day to the 1, 2, and 5th metros when the 4th largest has none whatsoever.

Another one to ponder is how will they double ridership, yet only add half as much as they currently are (10 current, 15 future) and expect the doubling? Are those new rolling stock going to fit that much more on them?

My 'narcissism' (is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's idealised self image and attributes. https://www.google.com/search?client...d&q=narcissism) is more based on serving as much of the country and less of my desires. I have no personal benefit if Calgary, (4th largest metro) gets Via rail service. The 1.3 million in the city and the other citizens along the route would benefit.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ugh. People really don't understand how government works. It's not the board you have to convince. It's the owner of VIA Rail: the Government of Canada.

And it's easy to say, "I'm sure there is somebody out there.". If there was and they had substantially more political clout why would they be a public servant working at VIA?

The government has an open appointment process to the board. Some of the loud mouths here need to put up their resumes.

Originally Posted by someone123

Sometimes it is good to get the perspective from outside the system. At the end of the day, the interior political dysfunction is an explanation for what is going on but not a justification. And there is always the option of replacing that system with something else.

SSP is a public discussion forum where anybody can share their opinions. There are lots of media outlets that share the opinions of political insiders.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I agree. And so does the government. Which is why there is an open appointments process for people who have the interest and qualifications and feel inclined to offer that outside perspective.

Political dysfunction is the fault of politicians, not public servants. Put the blame where it should lie.

Absolutely. Some of the folks here should run for office and make those options available....

Fun fact - I was in a political party for a few years (Anyone surprised?) I learned very quickly how dirty politics are, even within the party. I no longer am a member, and have no desire to play in that mud hole.

I am a fan of talking to my MPP and MP to advocate for things that benefit my riding, and the country as a hole. For instance, my riding is served by 2 Via routes. Having those routes become dailies would benefit my riding and both of those politicians could use it for reelection.

I have learned that when you are in a senior bureaucrat level government position, it is less about how well you do the job, and more about how you play politics that gets you that job. Chances are, Via presidents did not start at the bottom jobs (but I look forward to being educated).

We have someone who works for Via, yet only tows the company lines that they feed the public. It may be due to legal reasons, or it may be due to lack of vision of that person. Either way, a visionary is needed in Via, and desperately

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by someone123

The topic of Vancouver to Chilliwack rail service comes up every so often. That route is if anything probably getting more attractive as traffic on the highway worsens and the population grows.

The population densities around Vancouver-Surrey-Langley-Abbotsford-Chilliwack are comparable to the more developed parts of Europe that are covered in rail lines and have passenger rail service all day long at regular intervals.

This is something Translink would need to get on board and do. The extension of the WCE would need to happen, and since it really hasn't been extended beyond what it started at 25 years ago, it likely won't happen. They are too busy with the Skytrain for the next decade.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

A question to ask is why add 5 more services a day to the 1, 2, and 5th metros when the 4th largest has none whatsoever.

Because it has demand and makes VIA viable. After everything you've read discussed here, you're still clueless.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Another one to ponder is how will they double ridership, yet only add half as much as they currently are (10 current, 15 future) and expect the doubling? Are those new rolling stock going to fit that much more on them?

See what I mean about being clueless?

Capacity is boosted by higher asset utilization. When it takes only 2 hrs to do a Quebec City-Montreal run, instead of 3 hrs, the same trainset and crew can do three runs in the time it takes to do two runs today. Repeat this across thw HFR route, then add trains across the whole Corridor and add more seats per train in the new sets, and you'll get a doubling of ridership.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

My 'narcissism' (is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's idealised self image and attributes. https://www.google.com/search?client...d&q=narcissism) is more based on serving as much of the country and less of my desires. I have no personal benefit if Calgary, (4th largest metro) gets Via rail service. The 1.3 million in the city and the other citizens along the route would benefit.

Rail services aren't some participation trophy to whine over. Like any other infrastructure, they need to serve a purpose and have a sufficient business case. Hard to argue that Calgary-Edmonton has a business case when VIA already requires heavy subsidies, including $150+ million per year for the Corridor. The entire purpose of HFR is to make that Corridor subsidy redundant allowing for reinvestment elsewhere. That you don't get this, despite it being explained several times, it's because you're self-absorbed and determined to be right, rather than learn.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Either way, a visionary is needed in Via, and desperately

Feel free to put your time where your large mouth is:

https://pcogic.njoyn.com/cl3/xweb/Xw...listing&lang=1

You can keep an eye out above. Several of VIA's directors will have their tenure expire this year and next.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Because it has demand and makes VIA viable. After everything you've read dis
Rail services aren't some participation trophy to whine over. Like any other infrastructure, they need to serve a purpose and have a sufficient business case. Hard to argue that Calgary-Edmonton has a business case when VIA already requires heavy subsidies, including $150+ million per year for the Corridor. The entire purpose of HFR is to make that Corridor subsidy redundant allowing for reinvestment elsewhere. That you don't get this, despite it being explained several times, it's because you're self-absorbed and determined to be right, rather than learn.

Most government services are not based on self sufficient business cases. The education, healthcare, transit, highway, defence, coast guard, parks, weather forecasting are not based on positive bottom line. This is because there are certain costs related to being a country, especially a large relatively unpopulated country. There are also costs to providing relative equitable treatment to all citizens of the country within reason.

We all admit that the only rail line within reason that could have higher speed rail is Edmonton - Calgary. However there is no reason why a basic level of service cannot be provided between Edmonton. Calgary, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg on a daily basis. There is no reason why there is not triweekly service between Toronto, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Winnipeg. Similarly service should be daily between Montreal-, Moncton and Halifax with daily trains between Halifax, Moncton and St John.

These are not pie in the sky requests but services that should provide government services across the country. Most importantly actions that reduce the impact of climate change do not have a quantifiable cost or profit.

Don't be so condescending of people who have a different opinion than you. When you respond like this; (Post 1553); "Feel free to put your time where your large mouth is:" you are the one behaving improperly. People need to be dealt with some respect which you fail to understand.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Most government services are not based on self sufficient business cases. The education, healthcare, transit, highway, defence, coast guard, parks, weather forecasting are not based on positive bottom line.

We aren't talking about "most government services". We are talking about a very specific one that has literally decades of bipartisan history of underfunding. With that in mind, to simply argue that they are incompetent for not delivering service to your favourite city or town without considering any broader context (especially funding) is absurd. And ignorant.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Don't be so condescending of people who have a different opinion than you. When you respond like this; (Post 1553); "Feel free to put your time where your large mouth is:" you are the one behaving improperly. People need to be dealt with some respect which you fail to understand.

When someone insists that they simply know better, without demonstrating a thorough understanding of the topic, a capacity to learn, and insists on the correctness of their opinions, without evidence, they are loud mouths. And deserve to be called out. We suffer them at detriment to our society and civil discourse at large.

Swimmer_spe's insistence on his superior knowledge, over and above practising professionals, reminds me of this famous quote:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

We all admit that the only rail line within reason that could have higher speed rail is Edmonton - Calgary. However there is no reason why a basic level of service cannot be provided between Edmonton. Calgary, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg on a daily basis. There is no reason why there is not triweekly service between Toronto, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Winnipeg. Similarly service should be daily between Montreal-, Moncton and Halifax with daily trains between Halifax, Moncton and St John.

Yes there is reason not to provide poor rail service on those lines merely for the sake of it, as has been explained many times.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ugh. People really don't understand how government works. It's not the board you have to convince. It's the owner of VIA Rail: the Government of Canada.

The government has an open appointment process to the board. Some of the loud mouths here need to put up their resumes.

Why would a loudmouth forumer like me apply for the board of VIA rail when you yourself - an expert in public affairs - claimed that the real power lies with elected politicians and the board and CEO are powerless to change anything?

And it's easy to say, "I'm sure there is somebody out there.". If there was and they had substantially more political clout why would they be a public servant working at VIA?

Because most serious crown corporations don't restrict their executive search to public servants within the Canadian Federal bureaucracy.

There are a lot of CEOs who would really welcome the ability to turn an ailing government operation around - especially one like a passenger railroad that is run like a traditional consumer-facing operation (albeit under significant market constraints). This is not because these guys are altruistic; it's because it's a huge career boost. If you succeed in turning VIA rail around, your next job might be CEO of Virgin Trains or a major public transit agency; if you oversee a huge infrastructure investment, your next job might be to advise the infrastructure investment arm of a pension fund, or whatever.

None of these people are cheap, and some may not be worth the money, but they bring outside perspective and may be more than willing to rock the boat a bit, since they're not in it for their next Federal appointment.

And even if you're not an insider to government, general business knowledge suggests that if you have declining market share over 4 decades (8 million riders in 1981; 4.8 million riders in 2018), run the same (or fewer) services as you did a generation ago, and have made no strides in winning over politicians or freight rail companies (despite 8 changes in government and probably as many changes in CN/CP leadership), that boat probably needs to be rocked a bit.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The entire purpose of HFR is to make that Corridor subsidy redundant allowing for reinvestment elsewhere. That you don't get this, despite it being explained several times, it's because you're self-absorbed and determined to be right, rather than learn.

I do wonder if this is realistic, are VIA even stating HFR will not require subsidy? Running railways without subsidy is fairly rare without some other income generating stream.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I do wonder if this is realistic, are VIA even stating HFR will not require subsidy?

It's at the core of the pitch. See the graphic above.

How do people still not know this? The whole thing is predicated on the fact that the capital investment should have a pay off by reducing operational costs substantially. Enough to possibly attract private capital, was the original hope.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Running railways without subsidy is fairly rare without some other income generating stream.

Absolutely. But as long as federal governments in this country insist that subsidies to VIA be limited, the only projects that can be supported are those with a positive financial ROI.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Because most serious crown corporations don't restrict their executive search to public servants within the Canadian Federal bureaucracy.

I'd like to see your evidence that VIA did so. Their Board has members with non-public sector experience. The current CEO was President of Bell Helicopter Textron Canada, prior to this job.